Michigan: "Lets let criminals out of prison early to save money!"

[rudeguy]

Text

Lawmakers and Gov. Jennifer Granholm on Thursday endorsed changes in parole policies that would drop Michigan's prison population by thousands and save $262 million in corrections costs by 2015.

They are going to parole everyone at their minimum sentence unless they pose a "very high" risk of re-offending. This is after they have severely cut police funding, making Michigan's police to citizen ration one of the lowest in the country. Michigan's unemployment rate is nearly 11%, so there is very little chance of convicts getting work after they are released. Chances are they will end up on government assistance, so it will just raise costs elsewhere in the state's budget.

Mad Max, here we come!

 

[OCGuy]

CA already does this. In Orange County you do 2/3 time with good behavior, LA county you do about 20% of your time.

Prison is 2/3 time, and 1/3 time if you go to fire camp.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: NSFW
Text

Lawmakers and Gov. Jennifer Granholm on Thursday endorsed changes in parole policies that would drop Michigan's prison population by thousands and save $262 million in corrections costs by 2015.

They are going to parole everyone at their minimum sentence unless they pose a "very high" risk of re-offending. This is after they have severely cut police funding, making Michigan's police to citizen ration one of the lowest in the country. Michigan's unemployment rate is nearly 11%, so there is very little chance of convicts getting work after they are released. Chances are they will end up on government assistance, so it will just raise costs elsewhere in the state's budget.

Mad Max, here we come!

Yeah lets lock people up for 2 years for smoking a joint or stealing an ipod. What a waste of money.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: NSFW
Text

Lawmakers and Gov. Jennifer Granholm on Thursday endorsed changes in parole policies that would drop Michigan's prison population by thousands and save $262 million in corrections costs by 2015.

They are going to parole everyone at their minimum sentence unless they pose a "very high" risk of re-offending. This is after they have severely cut police funding, making Michigan's police to citizen ration one of the lowest in the country. Michigan's unemployment rate is nearly 11%, so there is very little chance of convicts getting work after they are released. Chances are they will end up on government assistance, so it will just raise costs elsewhere in the state's budget.

Mad Max, here we come!

Maybe if we didn't have so many ridiculous laws with "mandatory minimum" sentencing, we wouldn't be in this ridiculous mess where corrections spending is absolutely crippling the state budget. So, this is a long overdue step, and not a big enough step in my opinion.

 

[kylebisme]

Yeah, let the victimless criminals go and reduce the sentences on the petty crooks if you want stop blowing so much cash on prisons.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Yeah, let the victimless criminals go and reduce the sentences on the petty crooks if you want stop blowing so much cash on prisons.

I would love to agree with you but we are talking about prison, not jail. People usually don't end up in prison for smoking a joint or stealing an Ipod. If they do, its because they are repeat offenders.

I don't understand how the state is going to save money having these people on welfare and other assistance instead of in prison.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: NSFW
I would love to agree with you but we are talking about prison, not jail. People usually don't end up in prison for smoking a joint or stealing an Ipod. If they do, its because they are repeat offenders.

They don't? Our drug laws in this country are fucking stupid.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Yeah, let the victimless criminals go and reduce the sentences on the petty crooks if you want stop blowing so much cash on prisons.

I would love to agree with you but we are talking about prison, not jail. People usually don't end up in prison for smoking a joint or stealing an Ipod. If they do, its because they are repeat offenders.

I don't understand how the state is going to save money having these people on welfare and other assistance instead of in prison.

Prison costs something like $50k per prisoner/per year in California. Welfare is like $300 per month. Do the math.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Yeah, let the victimless criminals go and reduce the sentences on the petty crooks if you want stop blowing so much cash on prisons.

I would love to agree with you but we are talking about prison, not jail. People usually don't end up in prison for smoking a joint or stealing an Ipod. If they do, its because they are repeat offenders.

I don't understand how the state is going to save money having these people on welfare and other assistance instead of in prison.

Prison costs something like $50k per prisoner/per year in California. Welfare is like $300 per month. Do the math.

take into acct repeat offenders and you redo the math. i am sure most of them will have committed another crime w/in 90days max - no not a stat, just something i pulled out of my ass which is just as good as a stat because i can find stats that say anything.

 

[Train]

This is nothing new in Michigan, its been common knowledge in Wayne county that anything less than murder or rape and your not going to do any jail time AT ALL.

But at least they are making movies!

 

[IceBergSLiM]

why dont they make prisons self sustaining. Never understood this.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
why dont they make prisons self sustaining. Never understood this.

$$$ and security. If there was a realistic way to do it which also had a lot of public support then we would already be seeing it today. No one wants to spend money on prisons. People spit out ideas but they are always flawed in one form or another.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
why dont they make prisons self sustaining. Never understood this.

They used to be.

I took a tour of the Mansfield Ohio Prison (the old castle looking one that was used in Shawshank Redemption) It had orchards and livestock pens that the prisoners worked to feed themselves.

At some point some politician decided it "too cruel" that a prisoner work to support himself. And a new gajillion dollar prison was built next to it that is basically a resort.

You'll notice in the outdoor shots in the movie they never look in a certain direction (I want to say south) because you would see the new one. In the one scene that you would, its covered by some pretty fake looking clouds.

Not to mention unions. Note that in the movie they used prisoners to fix a roof. Nowadays if they tried that every union in the state would be shitting bricks because they own all the politicians.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Prison costs something like $50k per prisoner/per year in California. Welfare is like $300 per month. Do the math.

Somebody needs to do that math, cause you sure can't.

Every statistic I can find for US average costs of prisoners is about $25,000/year. This is TOTAL cost, as in, costs divided by prison population. If you look for how much is costs to actually house a prisoner per year, it's closer to $1,500-$2,000.

US welfare expenditures in 2000 was about $430 Billion. It's much more difficult to determine cost per person, because there are varying degrees of welfare, but that's more than twice what we spend on prisons. Certainly nowhere near $300, which you obviously pulled out of your ass.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: marincounty

Prison costs something like $50k per prisoner/per year in California. Welfare is like $300 per month. Do the math.

Somebody needs to do that math, cause you sure can't.

Every statistic I can find for US average costs of prisoners is about $25,000/year. This is TOTAL cost, as in, costs divided by prison population. If you look for how much is costs to actually house a prisoner per year, it's closer to $1,500-$2,000.

US welfare expenditures in 2000 was about $430 Billion. It's much more difficult to determine cost per person, because there are varying degrees of welfare, but that's more than twice what we spend on prisons. Certainly nowhere near $300, which you obviously pulled out of your ass.

lulwut

This bolded paragraph is so messed up I can't even begin to correct it.

You're also forgetting something PARAMOUNT. There are no federal figures to account for all US Prisoners, the vast majority of which are in STATE prisons. As opposed to Federal Welfare figures, which encompass pretty much all 'on-the-dole' persons.

When you have someone in prison, you cover :

Housing
Bedding
Clothing and shoes
Toiletry
Water
Sewage
AC
Heat
Television
Furniture & Fixtures (crappy ones, but they're there)
Medical
Dental
Food
Security
Guard Training
Guard Pay
Guard Pensions
Guard Medical
Guard Uniforms
Guard Equipment (keys/mace/flashlights/etc)
Parking
Electric
etc
etc
etc

It's god damned expensive. Not to say that Welfare isn't (I think Welfare is tremendously wasteful), but it's grossly ignorant to put a figure of $2,000 or less per prisoner.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
why dont they make prisons self sustaining. Never understood this.

They used to be.

I took a tour of the Mansfield Ohio Prison (the old castle looking one that was used in Shawshank Redemption) It had orchards and livestock pens that the prisoners worked to feed themselves.

At some point some politician decided it "too cruel" that a prisoner work to support himself. And a new gajillion dollar prison was built next to it that is basically a resort.

You'll notice in the outdoor shots in the movie they never look in a certain direction (I want to say south) because you would see the new one. In the one scene that you would, its covered by some pretty fake looking clouds.

Not to mention unions. Note that in the movie they used prisoners to fix a roof. Nowadays if they tried that every union in the state would be shitting bricks because they own all the politicians.

I don't think you can blame this one on just overly liberal politicians and unions. A lot of people don't want prisoners providing services like that because there is little incentive for quality. People want quality when it comes to things like their rooftops since you used that as an example. What people often do not care about is stuff like picking up garbage off the street and we see prisoners doing that a lot.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
why dont they make prisons self sustaining. Never understood this.

They used to be.

I took a tour of the Mansfield Ohio Prison (the old castle looking one that was used in Shawshank Redemption) It had orchards and livestock pens that the prisoners worked to feed themselves.

At some point some politician decided it "too cruel" that a prisoner work to support himself. And a new gajillion dollar prison was built next to it that is basically a resort.

You'll notice in the outdoor shots in the movie they never look in a certain direction (I want to say south) because you would see the new one. In the one scene that you would, its covered by some pretty fake looking clouds.

Not to mention unions. Note that in the movie they used prisoners to fix a roof. Nowadays if they tried that every union in the state would be shitting bricks because they own all the politicians.

I don't think you can blame this one on just overly liberal politicians and unions. A lot of people don't want prisoners providing services like that because there is little incentive for quality. People want quality when it comes to things like their rooftops since you used that as an example. What people often do not care about is stuff like picking up garbage off the street and we see prisoners doing that a lot.

I'm only talking about providing services for THEMSELVES.

Having them do anything else would have moral implications. Sort of like the cities that balance the budget by sending cops out as ticket writers.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Train
I'm only talking about providing services for THEMSELVES.

Having them do anything else would have moral implications. Sort of like the cities that balance the budget by sending cops out as ticket writers.

I suppose I can understand building maintenance for the prisons, cleaning, etc. However, I am wondering if it is worth having them raise livestock and farm vegetables and fruits. That takes a lot of land and there are added costs to such things beyond labor. It might actually end up being more expensive to go that route these days.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Train
I'm only talking about providing services for THEMSELVES.

Having them do anything else would have moral implications. Sort of like the cities that balance the budget by sending cops out as ticket writers.

I suppose I can understand building maintenance for the prisons, cleaning, etc. However, I am wondering if it is worth having them raise livestock and farm vegetables and fruits. That takes a lot of land and there are added costs to such things beyond labor. It might actually end up being more expensive to go that route these days.

True, things are a lot diff than they were back in the 40's and 50's

But hanging out in the prison yard lifting weights and shanking eachother isnt exactly paying your debt to society either.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Train
I'm only talking about providing services for THEMSELVES.

Having them do anything else would have moral implications. Sort of like the cities that balance the budget by sending cops out as ticket writers.

I suppose I can understand building maintenance for the prisons, cleaning, etc. However, I am wondering if it is worth having them raise livestock and farm vegetables and fruits. That takes a lot of land and there are added costs to such things beyond labor. It might actually end up being more expensive to go that route these days.

True, things are a lot diff than they were back in the 40's and 50's

But hanging out in the prison yard lifting weights and shanking eachother isnt exactly paying your debt to society either.

The cleaning is done at our county prison by inmates. They get like 75 cents an hour, but they also end up getting sentence reductions.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: marincounty

Prison costs something like $50k per prisoner/per year in California. Welfare is like $300 per month. Do the math.

Somebody needs to do that math, cause you sure can't.

Every statistic I can find for US average costs of prisoners is about $25,000/year. This is TOTAL cost, as in, costs divided by prison population. If you look for how much is costs to actually house a prisoner per year, it's closer to $1,500-$2,000.

US welfare expenditures in 2000 was about $430 Billion. It's much more difficult to determine cost per person, because there are varying degrees of welfare, but that's more than twice what we spend on prisons. Certainly nowhere near $300, which you obviously pulled out of your ass.

lulwut

This bolded paragraph is so messed up I can't even begin to correct it.

You're also forgetting something PARAMOUNT. There are no federal figures to account for all US Prisoners, the vast majority of which are in STATE prisons.

"On December 31, 2007 - 2,293,157 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails "

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

The average annual operating cost per State inmate in 2001 was
$22,650, or $62.05 per day. Among facilities operated by the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, it was $22,632 per inmate, or $62.01
per day.

As a non-State activity, correctional spending by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was outside the scope of this report.
However, outlays for its operations in FY 2001 amounted to
$3.8 billion, or about 11% of the Nation's prison expenditure.

Salaries, wages, and benefits made up about two-thirds of State
prison operating expenditures, nationwide, in 2001. Other
operating costs comprised about a third. Other operating costs
covered a wide variety of outlays, such as inmate health care,
food, utilities, supplies, fees, commissions, and contractual
services.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/spe01.txt

This supports everything that I said. I know the report I read is not unlimited in scope, but it takes into account everything you attempted to correct me on. If there is something I am failing to see, please point it out.

As opposed to Federal Welfare figures, which encompass pretty much all 'on-the-dole' persons.

That's why I said, "It's much more difficult to determine cost per person, because there are varying degrees of welfare". If you compare total cost per inmate to total cost per person on welfare, you'd have the most useable comparison, which accounts for the total cost of the system per user. If you would like to find some more statistics on this, please do.

When you have someone in prison, you cover :

Housing
Bedding
Clothing and shoes
Toiletry
....

It's god damned expensive. Not to say that Welfare isn't (I think Welfare is tremendously wasteful), but it's grossly ignorant to put a figure of $2,000 or less per prisoner.

You live in a 1 bedroom apartment. It costs you $10,000 per year for all your basic needs. If a friend moves in with you, does it cost $20,000 per year for both of you to survive? What if 2 more people move in? $40,000 per year just to survive?

You see where I am going with that. Re-think your logic.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

You live in a 1 bedroom apartment. It costs you $10,000 per year for all your basic needs. If a friend moves in with you, does it cost $20,000 per year for both of you to survive? What if 2 more people move in? $40,000 per year just to survive?

You see where I am going with that. Re-think your logic.

Do you have security guards watching over you and closed circuit cameras?

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: bbdub333

You live in a 1 bedroom apartment. It costs you $10,000 per year for all your basic needs. If a friend moves in with you, does it cost $20,000 per year for both of you to survive? What if 2 more people move in? $40,000 per year just to survive?

You see where I am going with that. Re-think your logic.

Do you have security guards watching over you and closed circuit cameras?

My apartment complex does, actually. Do you think they need to add another camera and guard for each person that moves in?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: marincounty

Prison costs something like $50k per prisoner/per year in California. Welfare is like $300 per month. Do the math.

Somebody needs to do that math, cause you sure can't.

Every statistic I can find for US average costs of prisoners is about $25,000/year. This is TOTAL cost, as in, costs divided by prison population. If you look for how much is costs to actually house a prisoner per year, it's closer to $1,500-$2,000.

US welfare expenditures in 2000 was about $430 Billion. It's much more difficult to determine cost per person, because there are varying degrees of welfare, but that's more than twice what we spend on prisons. Certainly nowhere near $300, which you obviously pulled out of your ass.

lulwut

This bolded paragraph is so messed up I can't even begin to correct it.

You're also forgetting something PARAMOUNT. There are no federal figures to account for all US Prisoners, the vast majority of which are in STATE prisons.

"On December 31, 2007 - 2,293,157 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails "

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

The average annual operating cost per State inmate in 2001 was
$22,650, or $62.05 per day. Among facilities operated by the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, it was $22,632 per inmate, or $62.01
per day.

As a non-State activity, correctional spending by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was outside the scope of this report.
However, outlays for its operations in FY 2001 amounted to
$3.8 billion, or about 11% of the Nation's prison expenditure.

Salaries, wages, and benefits made up about two-thirds of State
prison operating expenditures, nationwide, in 2001. Other
operating costs comprised about a third. Other operating costs
covered a wide variety of outlays, such as inmate health care,
food, utilities, supplies, fees, commissions, and contractual
services.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/spe01.txt

This supports everything that I said. I know the report I read is not unlimited in scope, but it takes into account everything you attempted to correct me on. If there is something I am failing to see, please point it out.

As opposed to Federal Welfare figures, which encompass pretty much all 'on-the-dole' persons.

That's why I said, "It's much more difficult to determine cost per person, because there are varying degrees of welfare". If you compare total cost per inmate to total cost per person on welfare, you'd have the most useable comparison, which accounts for the total cost of the system per user. If you would like to find some more statistics on this, please do.

When you have someone in prison, you cover :

Housing
Bedding
Clothing and shoes
Toiletry
....

It's god damned expensive. Not to say that Welfare isn't (I think Welfare is tremendously wasteful), but it's grossly ignorant to put a figure of $2,000 or less per prisoner.

You live in a 1 bedroom apartment. It costs you $10,000 per year for all your basic needs. If a friend moves in with you, does it cost $20,000 per year for both of you to survive? What if 2 more people move in? $40,000 per year just to survive?

You see where I am going with that. Re-think your logic.

Okay, to requote you :

"Every statistic I can find for US average costs of prisoners is about $25,000/year. This is TOTAL cost, as in, costs divided by prison population. If you look for how much is costs to actually house a prisoner per year, it's closer to $1,500-$2,000."

I cannot imagine how the math would work to support that number. Your own link says that the total operating costs divided by prisoners equals $22k+ per inmate. It's the leap from $22k to $2k that doesn't make any damned sense.

Your point about living on the outside (not being micromanaged by the gov't) is true about being able to live more cheaply by sharing housing and resources, but c'mon, since when are pretty much any gov't entities efficient in terms of spending and operations?

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Okay, to requote you :

"Every statistic I can find for US average costs of prisoners is about $25,000/year. This is TOTAL cost, as in, costs divided by prison population. If you look for how much is costs to actually house a prisoner per year, it's closer to $1,500-$2,000."

I cannot imagine how the math would work to support that number. Your own link says that the total operating costs divided by prisoners equals $22k+ per inmate. It's the leap from $22k to $2k that doesn't make any damned sense.

Your point about living on the outside (not being micromanaged by the gov't) is true about being able to live more cheaply by sharing housing and resources, but c'mon, since when are pretty much any gov't entities efficient in terms of spending and operations?

The ~$2,000 figure (which, as I said, is a ballpark number which varies depending on source), would be better explained as the additional cost per person incarcerated, taking into account that the majority of costs incurred are for resources that are shared. In other words, we spend money on facilities, guards, cameras, electricity, etc., yet these costs do not change on a per-prisoner basis.

It is as in my analogy... resources that are shared among many roomates are not incurred repeatedly on a proportional scale. For example, we all pay 1/4 of the monthly rent, 1/4 the electricity, etc. However, we all need our own, set amount of food, so the food bill for the apartment would go up 4x. We all need our own clothes, so that would be 4x as well.

Simplified example: If we had 4 people living there, splitting a rent/utility bill of $10,000/year , and assuming that each person needs $1,000 in food/clothes per year, that would mean the total cost is $14,000 year, or $3,500 per person. If a 5th person moves in, would the bill be $14,000 + $3,500? No... the rent stays the same, $10,000. So each person pays $2,000 + $1,000 in food, so $3,000 x 5 people = $15,000. The total cost per person is now lower... $3,000. The total cost only increases by the cost to house that one person.

Like I said, this is a simplified analogy, but it works on the same principal.